This paper, produced in collaboration between the Open Climate Network and others, examines the Fast-Start Finance (FSF) period, considered an initial step towards mobilising the climate finance necessary to meet the adaptation and mitigation challenges developing countries face. The study focuses on the 37 countries that reported to the UNFCCC, drawing on detailed case studies to examine and map the interplay between FSF, Overseas Development Assistance, and other official flows of funding. In doing so, the authors hope to shed light on where and how FSF has achieved its goals, and provide lessons for future climate finance and development assistance efforts.
Following an introduction, the paper outlines the logic behind FSF and the methodology used herein to examine it. Specific types of FSF-supported projects are then analysed, together with the sources and modalities of FSF (channels, institutions, and mobilisation instruments). The extent to which FSF can be considered ‘new and additional’ is then discussed, with the authors noting the many definitions used by different actors. Following this, the geographic distribution of FSF and its targeting strategies (or lack thereof) comprise the penultimate section, before the report’s conclusions are presented.
Findings drawn from the study include that:
Countries reported mobilising $35 billion in FSF, exceeding targets.
Whilst climate finance reporting and transparency have improved, large variations remain in the overall level of information disclosed by different countries.
According to a number of definitions, the majority of increased climate finance during FSF is not ‘new and additional’.
71 per cent of FSF funding went to mitigation and REDD+, compared to just 18 per cent going to developing countries for adaptation purposes
Recipients of FSF are diverse, with no clear correlation between level of emissions or vulnerability.
From these findings, a number of lessons learned are presented in conclusion:
A continued commitment to scaling up climate finance is needed for political and practical reasons, requiring a strengthening of enabling environments in recipient countries.
Improvements can be made to better target country needs, circumstances and vulnerabilities.
Continued public investment in climate incompatible development is no longer an option.
Complete and comparable data on climate finance globally will require consistent reporting at project and programme level through UNFCCC reporting templates.